
Class ^1^ i> 6 n' 

Book .P >5%<^ 



SPEECH 



MON. MR. PORTi:ir, 



OF LOUISIANA. 






IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION MADE BY MR. BENTON TO 

EXPUNGE FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE SENATE 

The Resolution of the 24th March, 1834, 

« 

DISAPPROVING OF THE 

B.BMOVAI:. OP THE DBPOSITES 

BY THE PRESIDENT. 



DELIVERED ON TUKSDAV, MARpil 22, 1836. 



WASniNGTOK CITY 

ttVFF GREEN, PRlNTKn. 
1836. 



i:i^s^> 



SPEECH 



Mil. President : I have some diffidence in addressing the Senate on this 
question. The honorable Senator from Missouri has, with his usual indus- 
try, pronounced an elaborate argument in support of the resolution he has 
offered to the Senate. I suppose it to be the result of long meditation and 
much preparation. Neither the time allotted me since this discussion com- 
menced, nor the state of my health, has enabled me to give to the question 
the attention it merits ; indeed, such is my indisposition, tliat, v/ere it not 
for the pledge I in some sort contracted yerterday with the Senate, I should 
decline addressing it to-day. But unless I have lost all perception of truth, 
and am utterly mistaken as to its effect when presented to the mind of others, 
I cannot be deceived in believing that no want of strength on my part can 
prevent me t'roin exposing the utter feebleness of the j)osition which the 
Senator has assumed. 

It is not surprising, Mr. President, that great pains should be taken where 
a heavy responsibilit}^ is incurred. I say, sir, a heavy responsibility. The 
attempt is to deface and destroy the )jublic records of the country ; to alter 
and render obscure the journals of afurmer Congress, which are now the 
public property, and with which we have no constitutional concern, except 
as keepers and preservers. It is more than this— it is an attempt, to obliterate 
the truth. Yes, sir, to obliterate it. For whether the vote of the Senate was 
or was not correct on the occasion to which the Senator desires to apply his 
expunging process — Whether it was the solemn expres.sion of wise opinion, 
extorted from Senators under the high obligations of duty — or, as he will 
have it, the effusion of heated and blind party spirit, still the fact is tin- 
doubted that such a vote was given, and the object of the Senator is to have 
the record of that vote destroyed — this is, to erase the trut/i from your 
record. Such a proceeding, sir, is well calculated to excite solemn consider- 
ations, and calls for the exercise cf every high quality which patriotism can 
expect at our hands. 



Mr. President, it did strike me while the honorable Senator was speaking 
as most remarkable, that he should take such vast pains to show the vote of 
the Senate was erroneous and unconstitutional, in the instance which he has 
gelected for this new process of his. A stranger, sir, entering these halls at 
the time he was indulging his zeal, and practising his epithets on the conduct 
of the Senate which formed a part of the last Congress, would, I am certain, 
have imagined that there was some provision in the Constitution of the 
country which required a record to be kept of all the proceedings of this body 
which were constitulionul, and forbad any record being kept of those which 
were in violation oi \\\G Constitution. But, sir, that instrument may be 
searched in vain, and no such distinction can be found in it. The only por- 
tion which relates to our record makes none. I open it, sir, and what do I 
see ? The imperative mandate " that each Houf«e shall keep a record of its 
proceediugs ?"* Well, sir, if its votes and its resolutions are unconstitutional 
are they not still Us proceedings ? and is the obligation los solemn and less 
binding on us to prc'-erve them ? Before, therefore, so much time and so 
much energy were exhibited in a critical analysis of the nature of these acts, 
it behooved the Senator to show some authority for expunging proceedings 
of the character he supposes these to be. Until he did this, all examinaliou 
into their constitutionality was unnecessary and fruitless. 

The Constitution, it is clear, cannot be satisfied by the distinction the 
gentleman has made Its language is directly palpably opposed to it ; so 
also, sir, is its spirit. It is giving the enlightened framers of that instru- 
ment credit indeed for little wisdom to suppose that they contemplated 
irakiug any difference. The objects sought to be attained by this constitu- 
tional injunction were many. They will readily suggest themselves to 
Senators, and it is unnecessary to enumerate them. .-Vmong the most 
important was the preservation of the evidence of the great public concerns 
and valuable private interests which depend on the action of Congress. 
Another scarcely less important object was to secure to I he People a record 
of their servants' acts and voles, so that a correct judgment might be formed 
of their conduct, and justice dealt to them when their term of service ex- 
pired. The illustrious men by whom the inestimable charter of our Union 
was formed, knew well that history which professes to te.^ch, and does teach 
by the lights which experience furnishes, would be a false and treacherous 
guide if it recorded only the good deeds of men. They knew it was of 
equal importance it should enregister their errors and their vices, and they 
intended, therefore, that the record which they made provision for should 
be a beacon to warn as well as a light to allure. What useful knowledge, 
sir, could any man acquire by the perusal of ancient story, if it pie.senied 
to him no examples but those which were exhibited by the virtues. of 
antiquity— if it did not show to him the errors and vices and factions by 
which nations lost their freedom, as well as the simplicity and patriotism by 
which they established it ? None, sir, none. Nor here would our journals 
be of any value, if they did not preserve the evidence of our laults and our 
follies as faithfully as they do that of our wisdom and our virtues. I here 
is nothing therefurc in the spirit of our Constitution, any more than there 
is in its Idler, which can be tortured into the slightest support of the 
ahrming and dangerous proposition which the Senator proposes for our 
adoption. 1 might, therefore, sir, well spare my.self the task of following 
the honorable Senator from Missouri through the labored examination which 



he has made of the vote of the Senate in tiie year 1834, in relation to the 
removal of the deposites by the President, or of noticing the heated and 
exaggerated picture he has drawn of the motives of those by whom it was 
given. Such discussion can have no profitable effect on the naked question 
as to the power of the Senate to alter and deface the public record. It may, 
It js true, increase party spirit, and flush it to the perpetration of an act 
which, in my conscience and on my honor, I believe will hereafter (when 
reason resumes its sway) be a source of deep mortihcalion to all who now 
participate in it; but it can do nothing more. Howevi^r, sir, some of the 
assertions and reasonings of the honorable Senator in this part of his speech 
to the Senate ought not to pass entirely unnoticed, and I mav, perhaps, speak 
a Jittle to a few of them before I sit down. My present i>urpose, however, 
IS with i/ie merits of the question, and leaving to tiie honorable Senatpr, for 
a time, the banks, and the panic, and the panic makers,- and President 
Jackson, and hi.^, glory, and the old federalists— who, by the way, if they 
have joined the present Administration, are all transmuted inw pure de?no- 
cra/s of /he old sckool~l shall ptoceedio discuss the subjVct upon these 
considerations, and these alone, by which, in my view of the matter, a 
correct conclusion can be obtained. 

And, proceeding to do so, sir, I find it written in the fifth section of the 
first article of the constitution, that '< each House shall keep a journal of 
its proceedings, and, from time to time, publish the same, excepting such 
parts as maij, in their judgment, require secrecy." Now, sir, the first 
question which suggests itself in the ii quiry is, what is meant by the words 
''keep ajoicrnalof Us proceedings?'' To that question I know of but 
one answer that can be given ; and it is that which instantly suggests itself 
to every one, learned and unlearned, who reads them, namely, that each 
^oiise should record its proceedings, and preserve the record so made. 
11 this be not the irue meaning, I know not what answer csn be given. No 
other will satisfy the object contemplated by the Constitution. For without 
recording there would be no journal, and, without preserving the journal 
would not be kept. The honorable Senator has not furnished us "with his 
reading of this clause. He has, to be sure, talked, and talked correctly, of 
a variety of meanings which belong to the word keep; but viewed in' any 
other light than as a handsome exercise of ingenuitv, 1 could not see what 
practical result was to be attained from the disquisition ; for, after all, he 
failed to tell us what meaning he precisely attached to the expressions keep 
a journal. In this, sir, he did wisely. They have one, and one only mean- 
ing, in the common sense of all mankind. They have never had any other 
in England, or in Scotland, or in Ireland, nor' in any of the twenty-four 
sovereignties which compose this Union. The understanding of ihem has 
been uniform, whether applied to courts of justice or legislative bodies. The 
House shall keep a journal, the Clerk shall keep a record, in all time.", 
and in all countries where the language prevails, have been understood to 
write down what is done, and to preserve v/hat is written. The expression. 
It is true, is idiomatic, but for that very reason is the sense unembarrassed 
and perfect. It never was questioned nor denied until the honorable Sena- 
tor, m this rash attempt, found it necessary to perplex and mystify 
what until now every one considered clear and intelligible. 

If then, Mr. President, the plain meaning of the wovd^ keep a journal of 
its proceedings be that the Senate shall cause a record of its proceedings to 



be made, and preserve them, is there an impartial man who can doubt or 
deny that ihe resolution offered by the senator is a manifest violation of the 
Constitution ? I think there is not ; for the effect of that resolution will not 
be to preserve but to destroy. Does it make any difference thatonly a/>//r^ 
of these proceedings, not the whole, is to be blotted, or obscured, or defaced? 
It makes none. The injunction is, that you shall keep a journal of your pro- 
ceedings ; and if you deface any, the smallest portion of them, what remains 
\» not a journal of the proceedings but oi a part of them ; and this I con- 
tend is not a compliance with the Constitution. Under such construction of 
it if you strike out 999 parts out of 1000, you might just as truly say you 
taere keeping ajouriinl of the proceedings. 

If this reasoning be unsound, I trust gentlemen who follow in the debate 
will prove it to be so. I am sure there is ingenuity enough here to do it» 
if it can be doni. [ hope they will show us how apart oi a journal is the 
whole ; and when they have done so, I will suggest to them that they will 
then have to explain to the public mind, and satisfy it, how destroying 
fl. record is obeying a mandate which requires you to preserve it. 
This, sir, I am aware they will find no easy task. Until it is 
done, permit me, in the belief that what I have advanced is true, to follow 
this measure out to its legitimate, I might add, its inevitable consequences. 
Upon the principle then involved in the resolution offered by the honorable 
Senator, I affirm the whole journal of the proceedings ot^ the Legislature is 
completely placed at the mercy of a majority in either House of Congress. 
The solemn and authentic record of the" great public measures which may 
occupy its deliberations, the equally sacred register on which private rights 
depend, may be struck out in an instant by the fury of triumphant faction, 
the nromptings of sordid cupidity, or the fears of conscience-stricken pro- 
fligacy. And let us not, sir, flatter ourselves that the time will not come 
when these things will be done. He knows little of the causes of decay 
and dissolution which exist at the creation of every thing which our imper- 
fect nature produces, and winch expand and gather force with age, who can 
doubt it. I hope the day is distant, but we do but accelerate it, sir, when 
we cutoui-selves adrift fron» the Constitution. 

But, says the honorable Senator, all this is special pleading. The word 
keep has thirty-six meanings in ihe dictionary, and you have no right to take 
one of these meanings alone. We have just as much right to^ select our 
ineaning for the vvord from any of its various significations. This, sir, i& 
rather a new, and certainly a very independent way of interpreting a con- 
stitutional or legal provision. But let that pass for a moment, and permit me 
to say that, by the terms special pleading, the Senator me.ans refining, 
hair ■r.plit ling; there never was any thing more gratuitous said here. On 
the contrary, sir, we rely on the plain common sense meaning of the ex- 
pression ; upon that sense in which the v.-ords are understood by every one 
the most slightly echicated through the whole Republic. We contend for 
the significatron which the terms have every where and in all times received. 
If we left them for neiu meanings, to suit extraordinary occasions, as the 
honorable Senator is doing, we would be open to the rejjroach, as he justly 
is. 1 charfe it upon him, sir, and I shall make the charge good. He has 
departed from the usual signification, and substituted niceties and refinements 
for the general and popular use of the words; and, in doing so, has violated 
a rule of construction as universal as it is sound, and which it would be a 



reproach to the Senator he was not familiar with before he was three months 
in the office where he received his legal education. 

Recurring then, sir, to the wortl keep, and its thirty-six meanings, I have 
to say, sir, that nothing can be more true than that the verb has a variety 
of senses ; but does thai prove that it has not one known unquestionable 
signification when used as it is in the Constitution of the United States ? 
Certainly not. Sir, let the gentleman apply any one of the various mean- 
ings of this word to be found in the books of philology, save that which we 
contend for, to the terms keep a journal, and I will venture to say the utter 
absurdity in which the process must end will convince even him how vain 
and futile and dangerous it is to depart from the popular understanding of 
the matter. No doubt, as the honorable Senator says, keeping a door, 
keeping house, and keeping a store, do not mean the same thing. The 
meaning varies with the object to which the verb is applied. But in these 
cases the idiomatic sense 'supplies the necessity of all reference to diction- 
aries ; it is perfectly comprehended by every one, and supposes that which 
is done, or necessary to be done, in keeping a door, keeping house, or keep- 
ing a store. It would be si waste of time for me to explain them ; they ex- 
plain themselves more forcibly than* I could by any other words. Verbs 
and adjectives in all languages, vary in their meaning by the objects to which 
they are applied, the latter sometimes by their position in relation to the 
noun. For example, the appellation envoy extraordinary has a clear and 
specific signification ; transpose the words, however, and say, an extraordi- 
nary envoy, and they present quite another idea. Well, sir, what would 
you say to any one who would rise, here or elsewhere, and contend that, as 
the dictionaries of our language declared that the adjective extraordinary 
signified remarkable, wonderful^ the expression envoy extraordinary con- 
veyed the idea that a loonderful envoy had been sent to our country? Not 
less extravagant, I contend, sir, is it to depart from the common sense 
meaning which is given to the verb keep in all the varieties in which it is 
used. 

Many, sir (said Mr. P.), as are the uses which are made of it, 1 am not 
aware that it has two meanings in its application to any one object. The 
thing to which it is applied controls and fixes its sense, as in the terms keep 
a promise^ keep a journal, keep a horse. Ail these have popular and known 
sio-nifications, from which you cannot depart without falling into conclusions 
absurd and untrue. Let us take by way of illustration the expression A-ee/? 
a horse. We will suppose the Senator to have delivered his to a livery 
stable to be kept. He calls for him some time after, and the owner of the 
stable tells him that the animal has perished for luant of food. Reproach 
instantly follows this breach of engagement, and it would not be ajjpeased, 
I hazard nothing in saying, by the keeper showing the honorable gentleman 
that, according to Webster's or any other dictionary, the verb keep has a 
variety of senses, and that one of them perfectly justified him in his notion 
that he was not obliged to give the horse food. Sir, I will venture to affirm 
the Senator would consider this perfect special pleading. So, sir, if he 
oave a friend a bundle of papers to keep, and, when he called for the deposile, 
should be told that, according to the best philologists, keep among its thirty- 
six significations meant to supply with Hie necessaries of life, and, finding 
the book refuse all sustenance, he had thrown it away as utterly incorrigible, 
would not the honorable Senator consider the excuse for non-delivery cf^z-ea/ 



8 

rejinenient ! So, too, sir, if some thirty years since, when the Senator from 
Missouri and myself first became acquainted on the banks of the Shaivnee 
(whose beautiful Indian appellation is lost in the prosaic one of Cumber- 
land^) a lock of hair had been bestowed on him by Lady's love to be kept 
until they again met, and on her calling for the dear pledge he had informed 
her that his promise to keep did not bind him to preserve, because one of 
the meanings of the word was io pasture, would she not, sir, have considered 
the gentleman more learned than true — a gay deceiver — and a great hair- 
splitter ? And so, sir, when the Senator contends that the constitutional 
injunction to keep a Journal means that you may destroy a part of it, I say 
to him that he can only reach such a conclusion by special pleading, byre- 
fining, by hair-splitting, or by abandoning common sense, and trampling 
the Constitution underfoot. 

No human ingenuity, sir, can sustain the proposition the Senator advances. 
I know there is scarcely any thing in favor of which something plausible 
may not be advanced, and the gentleman, I admit, has made the most of 
his case. But no covering he may throw over the Constitution can hide 
the wound he inflicts on it. The hoijorable Senator, under his heated feel- 
ings, may consider his case as made out ; I do not say he does not so con- 
sider it. But those vviio look calmly at the thing will see nothing but excuses, 
where he finds reasons. They who a:^»^ anxious for the violation (I do not 
say there are any such in this body) may be glad to have these excuses fur- 
nished to them. But time and the silent monitor within will do their work, 
and they will live to see the day when the shout of party triumph will bring 
no joy ; when they will be compelled to look for consolation in the repent- 
ance which ever follows the conviction of wrong committed. I hope they 
will have that consolation, sir ; God forbid they should not. 

But the honorable Senator has one read}"^ for them now. He says, if I 
understand his argument correctly (and if I did not I pray to be set right), 
that no practical injury can result from the act. The process by which this 
consolation is obtained is somewhat curious. The gentleman tells the Se- 
nate that there are 1,000 originals of the journal, and that the defacing of 
that kept by the Secretary leaves all the rest complete. Well, sir, .vdmit 
I he position to be correct, and what then ? Does that furnish any argument 
in favor of disfiguring one of tiiem ? Whether there be many or few 
originals, are ihey not all equally under the protection of the Constitution ? 
If so many are to be kept as^ record of our proceedings, is it not indispensa- 
ble they should all be true recoids ? Did the Constitution contemplate that 
some of our journals should exhibit a faithful record of our proceedings, and 
others should not? Or am I to understand the honorable Senator that enough 
which are true will remain to correct that which the expunging resolution 
purposes to falsify ? If that be the j)osition, I leave to him and his friends 
all the advantage they can derive from the argument. 

But, sir, I pray leave to enter my utter dissent to the proposition that we 
have one thousand originals of our journals. W^e have only one original, 
sir ; that which is made up by our Secretary, read over to us, sanctioned by 
the approval of this body, and |)laced among the archives of the Senate. 
It is that, and that alone, which forms the record of our proceedings, and 
furnishes the origi7t.al, from which transcripts become evidence elsewhere. 
The originals of which the Senator speaks are not even copies ; they are 
but the copies of a copy furnished by our Secretary to the printer. I am 



aware of the decisions of courts, which the Senator from Missouri has 
quoted on the admissibility of these printed copies as evidence. It is not 
my purpose to go into a critical investigation of the soundness of the doctrine 
fey which such a rule has been established. I content myself with saying 
that these cases do not proceed on the principle that the printed journals are 
originals ; they go on the supposition that they are true copies. In giving 
them even this character, the tribunals of justice have gone very far, and the 
cases in which they have been received are of modern date, and of some- 
what doubtful authority. They have beer,, as it were, extorted from the 
courts by the great convenience of the practice, and from a strong and in 
general a well-founded belief that they are faithful transcripts. But at the 
utmost they are nothing more \.\\An prima facie evidence, and if contradicted 
by the original in writing, of which I have spoken, they must instantly yield 
to the higher authenticity which belongs to it. To all acquainted with this 
subject it must be apparent that the whole matter exhiljfts a great relaxation 
of the salutary rule, that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit 
of must be produced. But be this as it may, the doctrine gives no sanction 
to the idea that these printed journals are originals. And admitting it to be 
sound and correct, it by no means supjiorts the proposition that the original 
is not to be preserved with care and fidelity. 

We have been referred, Mr. President, to' the practice of the Parliament 
of Great Britain on matters of this kind. It is stated that that country has 
a Constitution as oars has; that our parliamentary proceedings were bor- 
rowed from, and have a reference to, theirs ; and that we are in the daily 
habit of referring to parliamentary rules and parliamentary practice as our 
guide. From these facts the conclusion is drawn, that every power which 
they may exercise we can also exereise. I believe this is a faithful summary 
of what the honorable Senator advanced on this branch of the subject, and 
I take occasion to say that it all has my entire assent, save the conclusion 
which he has drawn. That conclusion too would be sound enough from his 
premises; but it is incorrect because the Senator left out one important and 
controlling postulate which belongs to the question, and which I shall 
immediately notice. 

It is the constitutional provision which we have on the subject that makes 
all the difference for which I contend. Were it not for it, the rule referred 
to by the Senator, that the power to expunge from its journals any offen- 
sive matter found in them was inherent in every legislative body, could not 
be contested. But it is obvious that a rule must be subject to the exception, 
provided the legislative body itself has not rules prescribed for its govern- 
ment by a higher authority inconsistent with the exercise of such a power. 
That such is the case here I affirm, and it is this circumstance which takes 
away all force from British precedents when applied, in a case of this kind, 
to the proceedings of an American Congress. 

Great Britain, Mr. President, does not possess, as we do, a written Con- 
stitution. The great principles of civil and political freedom are, it is true, 
found in Magna Charta, and her bill of rights, put forward at the Revo- 
lution of 1688. But even they do not form a constitutional charter which 
places them beyond the control of Acts of Parliament. And we must 
look to all these, to ascertain what constitutional provisions exist in Eng- 
land controlling the rules of the two Houses of Parliament in regard to 
their own proceedings. I have looked into all these, sir, and I do not find 



10 

in any of them a single provision prescribing rules on this subject to either 
House of Parliament, The niatter is left entirely to the discretion and con- 
trol of each body. It follows, therefore, that the inherent right which 
exists, I admit, in every legislative assembly to regulate its own proceedings, 
flourishes in full force there. To the possession and exercise of that power 
alone is the practice of expunging to be referred. Wholly unchecked by 
constitutional restrictions, thev ex^rt it as they please, without stint and 
without control. They are under no co7istitutional obligation to keep any 
journal ; unless as a matter of convenience, I suppose they would not keep 
any. With such absolute power over the whole of the journal, they are of 
course complete masters over every part of it. They may expunge as they 
please, or preserve, or not preserve, as they choose. But how stands the 
case with us .-^ Have we a discretion on this matter? Can we dispense 
with keeping a journal ? And if we cannot dispense with recording our 
proceedings, how can we dispense with a portion of them ? Let the clause 
of the Constitution already cited answer these questions, and after gentlemen 
have pondered on it, let them see what authority ihey can derive from the 
parliamentary practice of England to justify the attempt to deface and 
render obscure the constitutional record of this House. 

In connexion with this branch of the subject, sir, let me refer for one mo- 
ment to that part of the Constitution o( the United States which declares 
that the yeas and yiays shall, at the request of one-fifth of the members pre- 
sent, be entered on the journals. No such rule as this is found in. the Lex 
Parliament aria of England. No doubt either House might adopt it if 
they chose. . But if they did, could any examples of theirs, by which it 
was refused in a particular instance, dispense us with the obligation to have 
the entry made in all ? Surely n«t ; and therefore I do not see wh}', with- 
out any constitutional obligation to keep a journal in that country, tiieir pre- 
cedents can enlighten us as to our duties here. By the way, sir, I should 
like to be informed whether, by this expunging process, the yeas and nays 
can also be erased from your journal, and the members of this body depriv- 
ed of their constitutional right to have their names recorded and their opi- 
nions registered on all measures on which they vote. I suppose such a prin- 
ciple will be scarcely contended for ; the violation would be too palpable. 
And as there are no English precedents to close the gap which such an act 
would make in the Constitution, it will hardly be thought of. Well, sir, if 
the yeas and nays cannot be expunged from your journal, vvhat becomes oi" 
this constitutional privilege, alike important to the constituent and the re- 
presentative, by which the record of his vole is to be preserved — a record 
which will show the names, but give no information on ivhat subject t/iey 
were recorded? The whole proceeding, sir, offers a fine commentary on 
the value of constitutional barriers, in restraining the passions of parly in a 
free Government. 

It is, however, said that our rules of proceeding are in a great measure 
taken from those of the English Parliament, or were made in reference to 
them, and that we are in tho daily habit of referring to them as a guide in 
cases new and unprovided lor. True, sir; but docs not the honorable Sena- 
tor see, in this very circumstaace, a very strong, if not the strongest reason 
against the introduction of English rules on this question of expunging? 
These British rules were once, sir, not only referred to in this country, they 
formed the law lor the government of our Colonial Legislatures before the 



11 



T? 1 i'r.^ ThPirreal men, sir, who formed the Constitution of this country » 
w\f trperTectlfvv if They were also quite familiar with every thing, 
}nZ hU ofv of the English Parliament in relation to expunging, and they 
In w l^ te7th n I do, and quite as well as the honorahle Senator from 

jr.^prenr;^ed;::::;^onf\heAme 

all he re 'it must strike every one, sir, on reading the Federal Const - 
fution .Tmost remarkable, that in an instrument of that lund,m which 
notrnV Lrokecforbut general provisions, we should find such special 
en c^^ents on the subjectl-nothing left to discretion But that surprise, 
sir readily yields to a little reflection, and the value of the clauses in question 
r«PPn The men bv whom the great charter ot our Union was tormed 
^mff^omttTchlrof the Revolution, so ^-tile of taleiU and of viKue. 
Thet were profoun.lly acquainted with all the causes by vyhich free mstitu- 
Uons cin be^upheld and m\y be destroyed. They knew that the legis ative 
branch of the Government/from its construction and its povvers, if cor up 
was more formidable than all the rest to the liberties ot the People. In t 
^hev^^ere aw3,e factions must arise and riot. History had taugnt them how 
mlr ties in public assen>blies are prone to trample on the rights of mmori- 
tTe It was eemed, therefore, of\he highest importance to secure, as lai 
as nos. blla ecord ^f all the acts of the Representative and to g.ve pubh- 
cty to tin. so that the People might know what each member did and 
what he did not do. They wished to place before the traitor who is false o 
hi. dutv here he certainty that his evil deeds could not be concealed while 
I Vint aLl that an uthentic record would carry down to the latest posterity 

irio'atTso.e memory. Hence they determined tl-t e f ou d r.ei 
falsify the record of what he did, nor deprive his opponents of the evi( ence 
1 Seir opposition to him. Th.se were the reasons wh.ch - -ed/he 
framersof he Constitution to make your journals sacred. And you do 
vTollte as ho y ground as any the Constitution covers, when you lay your 
Zd onthem,^ndblot anol deface them. If these considerations are en- 
S to the w;i.ht I think justly due to them, with, what semblance of jus- 
ce en it Purged that Ihese matters are to be regulated by English 
narliamentary practice ? The introduction of any ru es on the subject into 
fhe Con t ution excludes such an idea; and the rules themselves, incon- 
^s^tent with those prevailing in England, forbu any such conclusion 

r Pt IIS however, sir, follow this matter a little furthei . It, as tne nonor 
abt Senate slys we are to be governed by the English practice on this 
0^ ect'of :xpu4i'ng, I presume we must take that pr act. ^ ^"^'^eVeTs^'r 
not at liberty to introduce one part of ii and reject another. 1 Here is cer 
^ ainlv no rule in our body which prescribes how it is to be done ; we must 
therefore imitate the plrliameniary precedents througiiout Now, if I 
underl'^d t^h^^ right, the^ establish the principle that, whenever 

the pTr amenta y proceedings infringe on the rights, red or s^PP^^^d of 
e Ex!>cutive Chief ^Magistrate, he sends for the journals, or come to the 
House an strikes out thl offensive matter with his own hand. W hen, on 
rhe c^p?rary, the powers of the body on legislative matters are impugned 
^yZlZ] order] or resolution, or are improperly exercised, the erasure 



13 

• is made by an officer, under the order of the House. Such appears to be 
the practice there ; and if it is to govern us here, let us have it in its purity. 
The resolution, therefore, proposed by the Senator is entirely gratuitous ; 
the thing can be done, and strictly speaking, ought to be done, without any 
action on our part. The President himself, according to the excellent rules 
of Parliament which the gentleman recommends to our adoption, has the 
right to send for our journals, and make such correction in them as he thinks 
fit. That Senators may see I am not hiistaken on this subject, I beg 
leave to quote to them \\\e following illustrious precedent, derived 
from the act of the renowned and sajtient King James the First, 
of blessed memory. 

The House of Commons in England, sir, at the time when their glorious 
contest between the prerogative of the Crown and the rights of the People 
was about to commence, passed the following resolution ; 

"The Commons now assembled in Parliment, being justly occasioned there- 
unto, concerning sundry liberties, franchises, and privileges of Parliament, 
amongst r)thers here mentioned, do make this protestation following ; that 
the liberLies, franchises, and jurisdictions of parliament, are the ancient and 
undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the 
urgent and arduous affairs concerning the king, state, and defence of the 
realm and of tiie church of England, and the maintenance and making of 
laws, and redress of mischiefs and grievances, which daily happen within 
this realm, are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in Parlia- 
ment ; and that in the handling and proceeding of those busineases, every 
member of the House of Parliament hath, and of right ought to have, free- 
dom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same, 
and that the Commons, in Parliament, have like liberty and freedom to treat 
of these matters, in such order as in their judgment shall seem fittest; and 
that every member of the said House hath like freedom from all impeach- 
ment, imprisonment, and molestation (other than by censure of the House 
itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter 
or matters, touching the Parliament or Parliament business. And that, if 
any of the said niembers be compi ined o/, and questioned for any thing done 
or said in Parliament, the same Is to be shown to the king, by the advice 
and consent of all the Commons, fissembled in Parliament, before the king 
gave credence to any private information. '^ 

The sovereign just alluded to, sir, on learning this audacious avowal of 
right on the part of the Commons, was extremely indignant ; he dissolved 
the body, and calling for the journals, struck out the resolution ifJzVA his 
own hand. 

Now, sir, I propose that we shall in all things conform to the right royal 
precedent. Let there be no half-way work. Let us'carry out the glorious 
example in all its length, breailih, and proportions. 

If, however, the honorable Senator will not go the whole, I recommend 
to him to come as near to it as he can, and 1 humbly submit to him whether 
he had not better so amend, or rather so modify his resolution that we may 
invite the President of the United States to visit this body, and be himself 
the instrument by which this stain on our proceedings should he removed. 
I would propose such an amendment myself; hut, as I would be compelled 
to vote against the resolution even so amended, I am afraid it would not be 
courteous to adopt such a course. But I again recommend to the honorable 



' 13 

Senator to think of the matter, and give his proceeding the shape I propose- 
The Senator, I see, signifies his dissent, and I fear we must swallow the dose 
as he has prepared it ; but hoping that my suggestion might be favorably- 
received, I had this morning, before coming here, carried out the whole 
scene in my own mind. 

I had imagined, sir, the Senate convened ; the members in their seats ; 
our faithful secretary at his post. The approach of the President is an- 
nounced. Immediately our Sergeant at-Arms, a very grave and discreet 
person, who each day so clearly and audibly announces, " Message from, the 
House of Representniives,^* &c. &c. &c., takes his station at the door, and, 
in a distinct and firm tone, cries out " The President of the United States.^* 
He enters. We rise from our seats, joy glistening in the eyes of his friends, 
dismay pictured on the countenances of his opponents. He traverses the 
room with a firm step and dignified air. You rise from your seat, sir, and 
receive him with that grace and urbanity which so eminently distinguish 
you — you salute him with aCectionate complaisance. He answers your 
salutation with kindness and dignity. All eyes are fixed on you and him ; 
and, more favored than other mortals, our vision is blessed at the satne 
moment with the setting and the rising sun. 

The preliminaries of reception passed over, and the bustle attending it 
terminated, a solemn silence prevails. You slowly rise from your seat — the 
President does the same. You pause for a moment, and cannot conceal the 
emotions which the affecting scene gives rise to; you are, however, at last 
composed, and you address the President in these words : 

"Sire: The Senate of the United States have imposed on me the most 
agreeable duty of announcing to you ihe object which has induced them to 
request your presence in their chamber. Deeply impressed with the value 
of your services in the field and tiie cabinet ; convinced that, under Divine 
Providence, you have rendered more services to mankind ' than any other 
mortal who has ever lived in the tide of times,'* they are anxious to show 
their devotion to your person, and tiieir sensibility to your fame. It is 
with grief they are under the necesiily of saying that there is found on their 
journal a resolution of this body, which is unworthy of them and of you. 
That resolution declares that the Senate differ in opinion with you on the 
lawfulness and conslitutionality of one of your public acts — a declaration, 
.sir, which they had no authority to make, and which is untrue, inasmuch as 
it dissents from the opinion of you, the wisest and the best. The Senate 
have resolved that it shall be expunged from their journals, as a warning to 
posterity that this branch oi the Legislature shall, in all time hereafter, keep 
within its constitutional powers, and express no opinion on any act of the 
Chief Magistrate. The Senate have considered, sir, that it would be more 
grateful to you, and more conformable to preccdenls drawn from \.\\q purest 
periods of British history, that you should expunge this odions resolution 
with your own hand. The manner in which the expurgation should be ef- 
fected is left entirely to your discretion. To erase the resolution by draw- 
ing black lines around it, is the mode preferred by many of your friends, 
and particularly by that distinguished and high minded body the Virginia 
Legislature. 1 present you, sir, this pen, that it may, in your own hand, 
avenge your wrongs, and shall only further say, sir, that this is the happiest 
and proudest moment of my life. // is glory enough for any one man."^ 

* Vic'e Mr. Benton's speech. 



I 



14 

Sir, I had also run out the gracious answer which the President would have 
made to this loyal and affectionate address, but I felt I was treading on ground 
which I ought not approach, and I therefore adandoned it. 

Sir, I think it scarcely kind of the Senator from Missouri to deprive the 
the world of the interesting ceremony, so royal in its precedent, and so va- 
luable in the support which the example would afford to the caase of freedom 
and legislative independence. I hope he will yet reconsider the matter, 
and if we are to have the process applied to our journals, give us the pure, 
unadulterated English practice on the subject. 

But, sir, I must leave these pleasant contemplations, and return to the 
argument. And sir, I contend that, even admitting all the reasoning offered 
in support of the resolution proposed, still we have no authority to do the 
act which the Senate is called on to do, because the journal which it is pro- 
posed to blot and deface is not owr journal, but that of a former Congress, 
I think I have conclusively shown that we have no power over our own 
journal after it is made up ; and I am not to be understood as in any respect 
abandoning the ground assumed in relation to it. But all the reasoning 
which established that proposition acquires an increased force when brought 
to bear on the present question. Some embarrassment is created in the 
mind on the first view of this matter, from an idea which commonly pre- 
vails, of the Senate being a permanent t)ocly, and that its journals, from its 
creation up to this time, belong to it in that character. But, sir, it is evident 
this position is only true when applied to the Senate in its executive capacity. 
In discharging its legislative functions, it has a limited existence. It can 
only act for two years at a time, and at the end of that period which termi- 
nates a Congress its legislative powers terminate, as those of the House of 
Representatives do. When it meets a House of Representatives whose 
whole number is newly elected, it meets that body with the one third of its 
members also newly elected, and both form a new Congress, and are not a 
continuation of the preceding one. The longer term of service of the 
Senators does not affect the dur;ition of the Legislature to which they are 
deputed, nor destroy its distinctive character. They are members of several 
Congresses, but several Congresses do not enter into and merge in a con- 
tinuous Senate. The Constitution of the United States vests the national 
legislative powers in a Congress composed of a Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives, not in the Senate and House of Representatives. I contend, 
therefore, sir, that the Senate of the United States stands precisely in the 
same relation to the legislative journals of a former Congress as the House of 
Representatives does ; and that, if the present House of Representatives lias 
no authority to alter or deface the journal of that branch ot the Legislature 
of the 2'M Congress, this body cannot touch the journal of the Senate, which 
formed a part of it. We are the keepers, sir, not the owners, of the volume 
which contains the proceedings of that Legislature. U it possible, sir, the 
extravagant proposition will be maintained that the journals of the Senate 
of 1790 belong to the Senate of lS3f), and that they have the power to 
change or obliterate what is written in them, or destroy them altogether at 
their pleasure ? And yet that proposition must be maintained, to justify the 
act now proposed to bo done. Far from being our property, they are that 
of the people of (he United States ; and you have just as much right to order 
by a resolution of the Senate, that one of the national frigates should be 
altered or destroyed, or one of the fortifications of the country dismantled, 



15 



unanimously carried, to postpone the subject under debate. 

On resrmins his remarks the following day, Mr. PORTER said: I am 
auite sensible of and grateful to the Senate for the indulgence wn:ch itex- 
?ended to me yesterday, and I feel that the best return I can make for , ts 
kindness is to condense' as much as possible what I have further to say on 
thp nueStion now under consideration. , ^ ^ * j t 

InThe observations I had the honor to offer to the Senate yesterday I 
touched on all the arguments offered by the Senator f^om Missouri wh.ch 
elated to our power to expunge, save that which he based on a precedent 
drav''' from a former proceeding of this body. Sir, 1 am free to confess 
when th gltleman read the resolution which, by its language affirms such 
Tpower, I never was more struck with astonishment in my life and it was 
unC the influence of an irresistible curiosity that I asked the Senator the 
quest on 1 did, and not from the intention of interrupting the train o h s 
?ema ks. He ebuked me for the interruption justly, but gently and I ac- 
auTesced in it. But, sir, when the honorable Senator further old me to 
beware resting the matte!- on so small a point, " or I might be blown up 
Sprepared^to join issue with him, and to show him that the pomt is by 
no mranTa smalliie On the contrary, the inquiry suggested a principle 
on which the whole value of the ease as a precedent, ^eP^nds. ^ 

If the Senate, in the instance relied on, had determined they possessed 
the power to expunge from their journal an entry made on it, we should then 
havrhld the question submitted, whether any example set by others cou d 
authorize us to surrender our clear and conscientious convictions of consti u- 
tTonalTbligaUon. But the case, sir, does not impose any such necessity. 
. Wha si ,^is its history ? It is ihis : On the last day of a session of Con- 
Tress in he year 1806, a petition, or memorial, was pres3nted from certain 
Srsons theVunder conviction for offences committed agamst the aws of 
fhe United States. This memorial reflected strongly on the conduct of the 
Chief Magistrate, and its tenor was entered on the minutes. How long after 
the entry las made we do not know, but not many hours alter, and on the 
same da^ in which the petition had been received, a motion was made and 
^«rTed to expunge it from the journal. This motion prevailed. The 
ron'ull andCy which always attend the transaction of business on the 
last n ght Congress sits, accounts fully for the inaccuracy of expression used 
in he resolution, as there was no journal until the entries "-^e d-ing the 
day were read over and sanctioned by the approbation of the Senate. Unti 
that approbation is given, the acts of the Secretary are no more tkan minutes 
of proc^eedino,, over which the body has complete control ; just as in the 
sam^e manner! he entries of a clerk of a court made during the day are sub- 



k 



16 



ject to the revision and correction of the iudp-P wh*»r. ^^.a «u r h • 
method of ge»i„g rid of ,he obnoxburn,:, 'r w;rp'ere ed'tt w sa 

;?J^:^VotTe--,:^:^7od7i:^^^^^^^^^ 

from them what ,s improperly placed there. It cannot^bH is noUrue 

L ;/.'a7rnr:cTir"7' n' '' "^'^^' ''^y '""^^ --^- and Unnot b or! 
reeled , all practice and all reason are opposed to such a doctrine But fhf, 

control over the proceedings, before thi ournal of the clerk o secretary s 

made up and sanct.oned, ,s totally different from the ri.ht cla med here t^ 

change or deface the record after it is complete. The court du i^fits term 

may correct any error into which it has fallen. Is Minutes ar^undfr Us 

con rol for the same time. But was it ever heard, tha t could at a sue 

ceedmg one, change, erase from, or add to the reco d of its proceedings of ^ 

iTnlllVf7rr ^''''^ "" ^'"^ ^°' ''''' •" — •-" -d on the true prin- 
ciples of the Consutut.on, ,s the power of this bod)' limited. Its record 
once made, becomes sacred ; it is the property of the People was intended' 
for the.r protection, and you have no right to deface it ^ ^ 

I he Senator from Missouri was well aware of this objection to the nre-' 
cedent c. ted by bin., and he endeavored skilfully to ev^de ^^by sa-finj 
hat at all events we could not deny that it was a complete answer toCf 
gument, winch assumed the constitutional duty of tins Hoi^se to reeo d 

offers no rtl' diffi^n h Fh^' ' ^^"''''^^'^ ^"^ "" ^ ^'^^^^ examination, k 

oners no rta d.fhcuily The question presented in. the instance referred 
to was prec.sely that we have been debating for nearlv two months or more 
th.s session; and that ,s, the right of this i,ody to reject a pet tion We 
who were .n the mmonty on the abolition memorials, and who o 'tended 
for ho.r rejection, urged that we had a right to refu.e to conside t em 
and to deny them any place on our journals. Had we then known othTs 
precedent we should have quoted it in support of the position we a 
sumed, for by erasing the memorial from the minutes, the then Senate de 
clared that they were under no constitutional obligation to receive h nor to' 
permit any record of it to be preserved. NVell, sir, I think the Senate le-" 
cued correctly in the case to which I have alluded; but the honorable Se " 
nator and those who voted with him to receive th; petitions wi Ino oub"t 
consider the decision of the Senate of 1S06 erroneous. If erronem.s it 
.s no a,.thority. II on the contrary, it was a sound opinion, rerbis 
what 1 assert to be the true doctrine, namely, that the Senut; have a St 
to refuse a petition, and are under no obligation to record it The cale 



17 

citeH, therefore, does in no respect conflict with the principles for which 
we who oppose this resolution contend. AH that is decided by it is, that 
the rejection of a petition is not such a proceeding as should be placed on 
the journals. But, Mr. President, did it go the whole length for which 
the honorable Senator introduced it, I could not permit in a case of this 
kind that it should control my actions. In constitutional questions, we are 
not permitted to surrender our conscience to authority. It ought to have 
no guide but reason. The precedent in itself contains nothing to challenge 
approbation. It was done in haste. We have no evidence there was any 
— we know there could not have been much — debate on it the last night of 
the session. It was passed by a small majority in a very thin Senate. It 
was a complete party vote, in high party times. To make such a proceed- 
ing decisive of a question of this magnitude, would be to place the Consti- 
tution of the country at the mercy of every faction which by turns may 
get possession of a majority in Congress. 

• I have already said, Mr. President, that I do not consider it made the 
slightest difference in the question before us, whether the resolution of the 
Senate, which it is proposed to expunge, was constitutional or otherwise. 
In my judgment the obligation imposed on us to keep a record of it is pre- 
cisely the same, be its character what it may. The Constitution makes no 
distinction ; and where it does not distinguish, we cannot. But as I do not 
agree with the Senator from Missouri that the Senate, in the instance alluded 
to, either did injustice to the President, or improperly exercised the powers 
vested in it, I beg leave to make a few observations on the leading proposi- 
tion, by which this charge of injustice and assumption of power was supposed 
to be established. We exercised, it is said, on the occasion complained of, 
judicial not legislative power, and we condemned the President of the 
United States when he was not accused, and we did so without even hearing 
his defence. 

If all this be true, " the head and front of our offending" is certainly very 
considerable ; but I apprehend it requires no very great ability to show that 
it has no foundation whatever. We did not, sir, on the occasion alluded to, 
exercise judicial power, and, therefore, we neither tried nor condemned the 
President. 

Although the legislative, executive, d^nd judicial powers conferred by the 
Constitution of the United States on the Senate be in theory distinct, yet 
cases are constantly arising in which the action of the Ijody in its several 
capacities is imperiously demanded on the wQty same matter. This is ine- 
vitable ; for as the powers conferred extend to the person who acts as well 
as the thing which is actfjd on, it is impossible, in legislating on the one, or 
in sitting in judgment on the other, to avoid deciding on matters which are 
common to both. The exercise of judicial authority in one aspect presents 
an exception to this principle. In the investigation which belongs to it, a 
prominent and controlling inquiry is as to the intention with ivhick 
the act loas committed. An examination of this kind can only be gone 
into by the Ser.ate when sitting as a court of impeachment, but with this 
single exception, I maintain that this body, in its legislative and in its exe- 
cutive capacity, can go into an investigation of the legality of acts, and 
their tendency, just as freely as if no judicial authority was conferred 
on it. Were it otherwise, its legislative power would be most injuriously 
abridged, and the executive portion could not be beneficially exercised. 
3 



18 

Indeed, it is only necessary to have the contrary principle established, and 
the Chief Magistrate would get a power in his hands which would enable 
him effectually to put a stop to all legislation on matters in regard to which 
he thought proper to resort to the exercise of Executive authority. But, if 
I understand tha Constitution rightly, it was not intended the legislative 
functions of this body should be placed under the control of any other branch 
of the Government. My reading of it is, that in the use of them it is not 
more confined in its sphere, nor less free in its action, than the House of 
Representatives. 

See, Mr. President, to what consequences the contrary doctrine would 
lead. Congress is almost constantly passing laws which require the exer- 
cise of Executive authority to carry them into effect ; the President con- 
strues them according to his judgment, and executes them. The Legislature 
take the matter into consideration: they think he has nssumed a power 
which the law did not confer, and the exercise of which is injurious to the 
public interests. A bill is introduced to correct the evil. Is the Senate 
estopped from acting on it, because, forsooth, it is compelled to look into the 
construction given by the President of the law, and finds that it differs in 
opinion from him ? Can it extend no remedy for the mischief because he has 
done wrong? 

In an early period of the federal legislation, an act was passed authorizing 
the President of the United Slates to remove from the public lands persons 
who had settled there without permission. It was intended to operate on 
that class of persons vulgarly but emphatically called squatters. In the year 
1806 (1 think), Mr. Jefferson enforced this law against a possession which 
Edward Livingston had of a portion of the batture in front of the city of 
New Orleans. To this property Mr. L. asserted title under a grant of the 
French Government to the society of Jesuits. His right was contested by 
the city of New Orleans, and by proprietors of the lots in front o.f the river, 
holding under the same grant. It is not necessary to say, if it were easy to 
do so, which had the better title ; it is enough to state that the property did 
not belong to the United States, and that the act of removal, however good 
the motives of the President, and I do not impeach them, was most illegal, 
and in its operation oppressive in the extreme. An action was brought 
against Mr. Jefferson for this act, and the cause dismissed for want of juris- 
diction in the court, on the ground that the trespass was committed in Louisi- 
ana, and the trespasser lived in Virginia. Now I ask, sir, if Mr, Living- 
ston had applied, as well he might, to Congress for compensation for the 
great pecuniary losses which he sustained by this act of the President, could 
the Senate not have acted on the bill for affording relief, because it must 
necessarily have decided that the President had done an act, in the language 
©f the resolution of the Senate, *' not conferred by the constitution and 
laws, but in derogation of both ?" 

If gentlemen on the other side say it could not have acted on such a bill, 
1t>ecause it must have decided on a matter which might thereafter come be- 
fore it on an impeaclunent for the act, I leave the correctness of the answer 
to be decided by the American people without any comment of mine. And 
if their answer be thit it could have constitutionally passed such a law, I in- 
quire what difference there is between deciding that an act of the President 
was contrary to law, and giving relief for it, and making a declaration to the 
same effect in the shape of a reBolution } 



19 



i T^conrest between the present Chief Magistrate and the Bank of the 

' United States is nearer to our own times, and offers an example equallv 

illustrative of the groun<l I assume. By its charter, the United States en- 

f ^,!^^?i? ^^'^'^'"^'"^''P°"'^^*^''P"^^'^'"°"^y«- T^he President thought 
he had the power to withdraw them whenever he pleased, and without anv 
cause save his own pleasure. The Senate think differently; and without 
stopping to inquire which party is right, I ask, could not a bill have been 

Zntn'ir ^5T^T'",r'"P'\''^''"^" ^' replaced, because, in our 
SpT^ T^ ^T • l^'"/'f"^ consequently, unconstitutionally re- 

moved ? I suppose It will hardly be contended it could not. If it could ' 
have we not the power to declare the illegality, by a resolution, in the hope 
that It will induce the chief Magistrate to reconsider his act and restore the 
dKlTe. '^'^"'''' sharper optics than mine, Mr. President, to see the 

We need not stop here, sir. Let us follow this matter into the exercise of 
hat executive power which the Constitution has conferred on us ?nd vidu 

o h.r^ Th ^ ^'"^ ^'^^ °fT r ^^"^^"'"^^ '^^"^•"^^e^ to the Senate for 
luTu .t ""'""f '" "^^''^ ^^^y ^^^^ discharged their duties in (he place 
filled by them IS often and of necessity a matter of rigid and severe inqu rv 

enable urto'decid:'wht^h"' '.''""•"^'' ^"' ^ j"^^'" '"^ ^--^^ - them « 
enable us to decide whether it us proper to give our consent to the nominee 

occupying a high station The investigation must, therefore, be often c7r 
ried to actions which, if commit.ed with a bad Motive, might sub ect the 
^.hhT ^°j^P,^«^^^'"^"\ Such a case, sir, has occurred, a nd^urXrU 
and bounden duty to go into such inquiries have never, as I know, been quel 
tioned although it is manifest the saine matters, in relation to the same^ er 
son, may come before us in a judicial capacity ' 

Sir this limitation which now, for the first time in our history is at 
empted to be placed on the legislative power of the Senate, a^regnan; 
sign of the prevailing notions of the day. The duties which this bod v ha 
to perform, in the capacity in which it passed this resolutio are ju^st 

character. With the opinions entertained by its members, th«^v couid not 
without sacrificing their conscience at the shrines of ease 'a d ixpediencv' 
have refrained from the declaration they made in relation to tlie condbct of 
the ExecuUve in removing the deposites. That measure filled then w ,h a 
profound, and, I will add a just alarai. In their view of the n at^er hev 
saw a great assmpption of power on the part of the Chief Magistrate and 
they could not be blind to the fact, that the tendency of public cTpSon \v s 
and, I am sorry to say, still is, to surrender all authoHty i ito the hanrofthe; 
Executive: to look to him, and to him onlv, as an index wM.h i« 1 ! 
to what is useful and what is honorable in 'p'oHc and i'n'l I i V E 
hey consulted their own convenience, their course was plain^ ""'to bovv 
to the storm, and trust that, when a le.<s popular man w.s It iLl L . i \!rt n 
vernment the healthy action of all its s[.vlal <le^::t;n;n: wo'u ^ et IL^d" 
But they took essons from a purer source, and. I trust, a higher \v\lZt' 
Experience had taught them that in free Governments da ge ou7prrc.S; 
are always set by popular men ; because it is they and (hey on) ^X can 

greate. .retches of iuthoHty, aL^'Vet^^l^^ ^^/^ -;;;«: ^^^^ 



20 

it to the utmost of their ability. For one, sir, I rejoice that they did so ; 
the gratitude of their country awaits them ; and posterity will do that justice 
to their acts and tj;ieir motives which party spirit now refuses to award to 
them. Far too Immble myself to connect history with my name, I fondly 
indulge the hope that the position I occupied at that moment will attach me 
in some degree to it, as one of those who stood manfully in the breach in the 
unequal battle which was fought for the Constitution. I desire no higher 
praise, and would ask no prouder epitaph to be engraven on my tomb. 

We have been required, sir, in this debate, to toe the mark-, and the hope 
has been expressed that, after having denounced the President during the ses- 
sion of 1834, stigmatized his conduct, and misrepresented his actions, we will 
not now take shelter under the defence that we did not mean to impute bad 
motives to his acts, and merely intended to express an abstract opinion on the 
lawfulness of his acts. This hope, Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, 
I am fully prepared to gratify. I am ready to come up to the line I advanc- 
ed to then, and defend it. And I say, sir, that, during the whole of that 
debate, I do not recollect any charge of corruption or intentional violation 
of the Constitution charged on the President of the United States. His acts, 
removing the deposites and displacing the Secretary of the Treasury, were 
denounced it is true, and in strong terms ; the unlawful assumption of au- 
thority was exposed in every point of view in which it was susceptible, 
and the pernicious tendency of the precedent set was painted in vivid colors. 
This is my recollection of the debate, sir. 1 do not pretend to say that, 
in the heat of it, expressions of another kind may not have casually 
dropped, but such was its general tenor, and I have no remembrance of its 
being carried further. As to my own opinions I can speak with great 
exactness, for 1 think now of the whole matter precisely as 1 thought then. 
I did not then believe, and I do not now believe, that the Chief Magistrate 
was impelled by any corrupt motive, or that he thought, when committing 
those acts we found fault with, that he was violating the Constitution and 
laws ; and the little I said on the subject, for I was then a new member 
here, distinctly expressed this conviction. 

But, sir, I considered the conduct of the President wrong. I believed 
that neither the Constitution nor the law authorized him to interfere as he 
did with the public Treasury, and so thinking I did not hesitate to say so, 
and sustain my opinions by my vote. The thought never cros.sed my 
mind that I was prejudging his case, if he had been impeached ; nor can I 
now see the slightest reason for alleging that I did. And I cagnot help, sir, 
remarking that they who press such an idea pay a poor compliment to the 
President when they contend that whoever differs with him in opinion as to 
the legality of his acts, necessarily ascribe to him bad motives for them; and 
decide the question of guilt, which we would have to try if we were in the 
exercise of our judicial futictions. 

But, sir, when the Senator from Missouri was about to bring forward 
this motion for expunging, I marvel he did not carry his attention to another 
resolution which is to be found on the journals of the Senate, and whioh, 
according to the doctrines he labors to establish, is in as great a degree a vio- 
lation of the Constitution as that selected by him. I allude to that passed by 
this body in relation to llu; late Postmaster General (Mr. Barry), at the 
close of the session of IS.'M, That the Senate may see the perfect analogy 
betwee'i the two cases, I shnll bring them in juxta-position. That which 
relates to the President is in these words -. 



21 

<< Resolved, That the President, in the late executive proceedings in re- 
lation to the revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not 
conferred by the Constitution and Laws, but in derogation of both." 

That which regarded Mr. Barry is as follows : 

"Resolved, that it is proved and admitted that large sums of money 
have been borrowed at difierent banks by the Post Master General in order 
to make up the deficiency in the means of carrying on the business of the 
Post Office Department, without authority given by any law of Congress ; 
and that, as Congr^s alone possesses the power to borrow money on the 
credit of the Unitecf States, all such contracts for loans by the Post Master 
are illegal and void.^' 

Now, sir, I cannot see any the slightest difference between these cases, 
and I defy the most subtle intellect to show how they can be distinguished 
from each other. And, sir, on examining the vote given on tha: case, we 
do not find it was a party vote. Far from it; it was the unanimous voice of 
the Senate, and the vote of the Senator from Missouri stands recorded among 
the number. Well, sir, may I not ask if it was a violation of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States to vote that Gen. Jackson had exercised a power 
not conferred on him by law, was it not an equal violation of it to vote that 
Mr. Barry had acted contrary to law? Do the names make any difference ? 
Or is it that the action which is constitutional in regard to a Postmaster 
General becomes a heinous offence when committed against one clothed with 
the power and upheld by the popularity of the President of the United 
States } I trust not. But still it is left to gentlemen who are now prepared 
to expunge this resolution because it prejudges Gen. Jackson, to explain why 
they voted for that against Mr. Barry, which equally prejudged him. They 
must also explain why they leave the latter resolution untouched on the 
journals, and expunge the former. Is it because they voted for ihat against 
the Postmaster that it is sacred.? or has slow repentance not yet reached 
them .f* Sir, it has been said that the most ignorant man may ask a question 
which the wisest cannot answer ; and I apprdiend they will find themselves 
pretty much in that condition in relation to these interrogatories. 

The Senator from Missouri, however, who takes time by the forelock, has 
anticipated this objection, and has given his explanation. He says the vote 
was forced on him, and, finding himself compelled to act in this unconsti- 
tutional way, he conceived that he was in no respect sanctioning the course 
. which the Senate pursued; that a negative vote would have admitted the 
jurisdiction just as much as an affirmative one. Without in the slightest 
respect impugning the sincerity of this declaration, and giving it full effect, I 
must still remark that though it may sustain the consistency of the Senator, 
it still leaves the precedent in all its original force, as the construction of 
laws, or the deductions to be made from the acts of legislative bodies, can 
be in no respect affected by the declarations of individual members of their 
views or motives in concurring in them. And I must also say, that I should 
think that it is a very good reason to vote against a resolution or law, that I 
believed it to be unconstitutional. But be this as it may, it only explains 
the vote of the Senator, and we have the sanction of all the rest ol his friends 
for the constitutionality of our proceeding. And at all events it is no justi- 
fication for permitting the resolution in regard to Mr. Barry to remain, and 
expunging that relating to the President. If either is to be effaced from our 
journal I hope both will. If justice requires this act, let it be extended to 



22 

the memory of him who has passed hence to another and better world, as 
well as to him who remains among us. Let the bounty of the honorable 
Se-nator extend to all similarly situated. I trust he will recollect, 

" That the selfsame sun which shines upon a Court 
Hides not his visage from the cottag-e." 

I think, Mr. President, I have shown that the Constitution of the coun- 
try will be violated if we adopt the resolution of the honorable Senator, 
and I hope I have satisfactorily answered the principal reasons presented by 
him in support of it. 

The remaining portion of the honorable Senator's speech was devoted 
to two subjects: a panegyric on Gen. Jackson, and a vituperation of the 
late Bank of the United States. The relevancy of either or both these 
maltei-fi to the question now before us, he will excuse me for saying i« not 
exactly seen by me, and I might well pass them by; but a few observations 
before I close, on some of tlie topics he advanced, will, I trust, be par- 
doned. 

And first, sir, as to the praises which the Senator has dealt out with such 
an overflowing hand to tiie President, I have to say that I find no fault with 
them. They proceed, no doubt, from the strong partiality which the gentle- 
man from Missouri feels for their object, and his friendship, and the modes 
he takes to manifest it, are matters entirely personal to himself. It would 
be the less excusable in me to complain of this failing, as it is one which I 
share largely in myself. In spite of every thing I can do, sir, I find the 
utmost difficulty in seeing faults in those to whom I am attached. My self 
love gets interested in sustaining them in my own opinion, and it is dexte- 
rous in palliating their weaknesses, and magnifying their virtues. With 
the perfect consciousness of this tendency of my own nature, I can make 
great allowance for what I consider the extravagant praise which the Sena- 
tor has bestowed on the present Chief Magistrate. But, after making all 
concessions of this kind, I cannot help thinking the gentleman from Mis- 
souri has pushed the matter a little too far; that he has even stretched be- 
yond its due exient the old maxim, 

" Lny it on thick, and some will stick." 
It is, perhaps, rash in me to say so. Sir, the honorable Senator is skilled 
in matters of this kind, but I just submit to him whether he did not set all 
the laws of probability (at least) at defiance, when he said that " Gen. Jack- 
son had rendered more benefit to mankind than all the politicians that ever 
existed." 

(Mr. Benton here said he had been misunderstood ; that he said '''all the 
hack politicians who had ever lived.'') 

Mr, Porter continuad. If, sir, the Senator so limited his remark, I do 
not gainsay it. On the contrary, it has my entire assent. There is no 
class of men for whom I have a more thorough coi#empt — no, sir, not my 
contempt, they are not \t'orthy of it — there are no men for whom I have a 
more intense pity, than I have for those who come under the denomination 
of hack politicians. They are a miserable race generally, lost to all honor, 
truth, and patriotism, who sell themselves for office, and when they obtain 
it, use place and station to plunder more successfully the People they have 
deceived, Witii such men, sir, 1 would not compare Gen. Jackson for a 
moment ; but, sir, I think, on reflection, the Senator from Missouri will see 



23 

that I was not mistaken, and that, in the warmth of his eulogium, he did 
carry his comparison to the extent I have stated. Such are my notes of his 
speech. [Here Mr. Benton said the Senator from Louisiana might so 
understand his remarks.] Well, sir, with that permission, I proceed to 
comment on the compliment paid to the President ; and, looking hack, I 
find that Solon was a politician, Aristides was a politician, Pericles was a 
politician, Cicero was a politician, John Hampden (a name never to be 
mentioned in a temple of freedom without reverence and gratitude) was a 
politician ; Lord Chatham was a politician ; John Hancock, Benjamin 
Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were politicians. And sir, witn these 
names come a crowd of recollections which force me to think that Solon, 
and Aristides, and Pericles, and Cicero, and John Hampden, and Lord 
Chatham, and Hancock, and Jefferson, and Franklin, taken altogether, have 
rendered just as nnich service to mankind as Gen. Jackson, and a little 
more. 

Sir, in making these remarks, I am not to be understood as wishing to 
detract from the reputation of the President. He has many qualities I 
respect, and he has rendered important services to his country. No one, 
sir, admires more than I do his indomilahlc will, strong native sagacity, and 
that almost sublime energy with which he pursues and generally attains his 
purpose. I appreciate, too, sir, at its just value, the unshaken attachment 
he displays to his friends, though the virtue be, as I admit it is, more fitted 
for the ornament of private than of public life. But close alongside of these - 
strong points of character lie defects which I fear will be painfully felt, and 
long seen in their untowar«l influence on public prosperity. But this is an 
ungrateful theme, which I have no desire to pursue, and I return to the 
remaining portion of the subject. 

I am sure the Senate will pardon me for not following the argument I am 
replying to, through the minute examination given by it to the affairs of the 
United States Bank. I sea no use in warring with the dead. The party 
in power have destroyed the bank on their responsibility, and I leave to 
them the pleasure and advantages oi a post mortem examination. I shall 
not assistatit. Ifl had the wish to do so, I have not the knowledge to 
enable me to meet the Senator on so intricate and confused a field. He has 
with great industry made himself master of a variety of facts of which I 
have no knowledge, still less of those by which his statements might be ex- 
plained, or the incorrectness of the views he has taken exhibited. Indeed, 
such is the absorbing attention which the Senator from Missouri has given 
to this same great monster, the Bank of the United States, that I apprehemi 
there is no man in the Republic, except the President of the Bank, who is 
able to give answers to all the objections and charges which the fertile ima- 
gination of the honorable member can at any moment conjure up. I would, 
therefore, suggest to him that great advantages would accr'ie to the Republic 
if he would, in some way or other, have a regular discussion with tlie pa~ 
rent of mischief. Old Nick himself, in regard to the former transactions of 
the bank- 'I'hey might play the game by letter, as that of chess is some- 
times done, or, what would perhaps be better, they could meet at some- 
half-way place, and each limiting himself to half an hour at a time (I should 
consider this clause in the agreement very important), they might at the 
end of five or six months end the matter quite as satisfactorily as the theolo- 
gical contests of a similar character we sometimes hear of generally termi- 



24 

nate-that is the auditors would come away with their heads confused, their 
passions heated, and their original prepossessions confirmed 

On this matter i can only state the impression produced on my mind by 
a i i have seen and heard on this question, and the conviction I express has, 
at all events, this recommendation, it comes from one who has nev(jr had 

nnf .'C^.'Tr 7u '^^u^'"^' '" ^'7 '""'y whatever, and whose judgn,ent is 
not clouded by the recollection either of favors received, or favors refused. 
I say, then, sir in all sincerity, that nothing has yet come under my consi- 
der ion to induce me to think that the Bank of the United States was not 
wisely and honestly conducted, and I am convinced that its operations were 
most useful and salutary to the nation. It gave us a sound currency, and it 
regulated exchanges with a success until then unknown, and which, if we 
have not reached that point already, we must soon cease to enjoy. No in- 
stitution with Its power, which ever existed, so studiously abst'ained from 
ail interference with either national or state politics, up to the time when it 
pleased those opposed to it to raise the war cry of party, and to denounce 
it to the Puohc, instead of calling it before a court of justice, where, ac- 
cording to the terms of its charter, all violations of it were to be tried I 
shall not attempt to characterize what it did afterwards; that must be judged 
by others: but I fear we are still too near the heated scenes which this con- 
test has given rise to, to judge of it correctly. Dragged from its legal and 
constitutional judges, and arraigned before the American peoole, it had no 
choice as to the place or mode of defence. It had no alternative but to 
submit in silence to all the imputations heaped on it, or to meet them by 
denial and proof. That it may have sometimes overstepped the limits of 
defence by assailing its opponents, may be true ; and that its language may 
not ha^c been always as guarded as policy would have dictated, is perhaps 
squally true, nor is it important. The fiult lies with those by whom -the 
irregular and unconstitutional assault was first made, and much is to be par- 
donedto the feelings such a proceeding produced. It is very easy for the phy- 
sician, vv^ho stands by the side of the victim who is racked, to tell him that 
his complaints must be courteous, and his cries gentle; but this species of 
lorbearance, like many other virtues, it is much less diificult to preach about 
than practise. ^ 

Nor have I ever, seen any proof that it abused its power at the time when 
Irom the wide-spread alarm which filled the community on the removal of 
the deposites, a total want of confidence in pecuniary matters seized on the 
public mind ; and this has again and again been shown. The contraction of 
its discounts was not greater than the removal of the deposites warranted- 
and the necessity for transmitting its funds from distant points to those nearer 
home, where it was menaced with a pressure, without the imputation of 
unworthy motives, accounts for the facts which the Senator referred to. 

And, sir, there is just asgreat a mistake in regard to the motives attributed 
to the members on ihis goor who were opposed to the measures taken by the 
President in relation to the Bank. I am really, sir, almost tempted to get 
out of humor with the Senator from Missouri at the small compliment he 
pays to our common sense, when he asserts that the course pursued by us 
was prompted by the hope of influencing elections, and promoting party 
ends. I beg the Senator to understand that deferring to him, as I am sure 
all on this side ot the House readily would, to his superior skill in election- 
eering, and to a knowledge of all topics by which the passions and prejudices 



2j 

of the multitude can be inflamed, we were not quite so ignorant of these 
things as to ever flatter ourselves the Bank could be made popular with 
the People. Reason and experience, sir, both taught us another lesson. 

We knew perfectly well, sir, that an institution of this kmd never could 
be acceptable to the mass. Banks always must be disliked by them, because 
the benefits which they confer on society are indirect, and the philosophy 
of their utility out of common reach, while the advantages which they con- 
fer on the owners of them are great ap.d palpable, and odious because the}' 
are exclusive. We knew all this, sir, and if we had not known it, experi- 
ence had taught us the lesson. We saw the old Bank of the United States, 
virhich was wisely conducted, which had given us a sound currency, and 
whose whole operations had been beneficial to society — we saw it, sir, pros- 
trated before public clamor and public prejudice, and that, too, at the 
moment we were about entering on war with one of the most powerful 
nations on earth, when its assistance was most important to the fiscal opera- 
tions of the Government. We knew, sir, that all the causes which produced 
this result were in active operation again; and vve foresaw Just as welt as 
our opponents did, that the same conclusion was extremely probable. 
There was no difference in our perception of this matter, though there was 
a wide difference in our view of the consequences. We saw distress and 
ruin to society in the measure, and we resisted it without any regard to its 
effect on our popularity. They either did not see them, or, if they did see, 
they disregarded them. I wish, sir, we had been false prophets. I would 
with cheerfulness give up the praise of wisdom and foresight, to avert the 
swarm of evils which this measure of the Administration is about to bring on 
the country, or rather which it has already brought on the country. 

We clearly foresaw, sir, what would take place, and vve as distinctly 
warned gentlemen on the other side of the inevitable derangement of the 
currency which must follow the measures they were pursuing. We entreated 
them to look back on the events which ensued on the refusal, in 1811, to 
charter the old bank — to reflect on the destruction of credit and prostration 
of morals which flowed from the multiplication of State banks soon after 
that period — to remember how at leasl one-third of the property of the 
country had changed hands in the space of a few years — and to think how 
many families had been reduced from affluence to poverty by similar mea- 
sures. We beseeched them to look at those things, but we beseeched in 
vain. The then Secretary of the Treasury told us State banks could furnish 
as good or better currency tfian the United States Bank. The President 
endorsed the statement. The Senator from Missouri talked of his metallic 
currency, and the golden age which was approaching ; and, under these 
errors and misconceptions the work of mischief was done. 

But now, sir, when all these delusions have passed, or are rapidly passing 
away, is it not meet and proper that we should, from the eminence on which 
we stand, look at the full extent of tlie evil which is approaching us ? We 
may draw from the past and present some salutary lessons for the future. 

I shall not, sir, fatigue the Senate by going back to that period of our 
history at the close of the revolutionary war, when there was such a rapid 
depreciation of the value of the currency, though it furnishes strong exam- 
ples to illustrate the views 1 entertain on this matter. I content myself wifh 
recalling the attention of the Senate to the circumstances which preceded, 
accompanied, and followed the destruction of the first National Bank, and 



26 

I am greatly mistaken if the parallel between the condition of the country 
now with what it was then, will not be found complete. 

Previous to the expiration of the charter of the first Bank of the United 
States, the currency of the country was in a very sound state, and it con- 
tinued so up to that period, and for a short time after. The States, however, 
soon began to charter institutions of their own, and between 1811 and 1813 
a considerable addition was made to the circulation. In 1816 it became 
excessive. During; all this period the country bore the external marks of 
prosperity; traue flourished, land, slaves, houses and lots, and all other spe- 
cies of property rose in value. Real estate, which could have been bought 
in 1810 for SlO an acre, in 1816 sold for ;gSO and §100. I remember the 
time well, sir; the universal prosperity of the country was the theme of 
every man's tongue, and speculation run riot in its magnificent schemes. 
But, sir, these things are subject to laws as certain as any thing else in this 
world. There is a point beyond which you cannot carry them. The bub- 
ble, when inflated too much, bursts. In 1817 and ISIS the reduction in 
the circulation commenced. It was at first slow and gradual, and its effects 
scarcely perceptible. Each day, however, rendered them more apparent, 
when, in 1S19, the circulation being by 50 per cent, less than that of 1815, 
there ensued a pecuniary distress which has never been exceeded in any 
country. Every article of commerce, land, slaves, houses, fell as far below 
their real value as they had before risen beyond it. The most enormous 
sacrifices were made at public and private sales; and every one was asto- 
nished, for they could not account for such a change in the general prospe- 
rity. 

Sir, they are all accounted for by these naked facts : in 1813 the circula- 
tion pf the country was seventy millions of dollars ; in 1815 one hundred 
and ten millions ; in \%\^ forty-five millions. Sir, it was not property 
that had risen in 1815, it was money that had depreciated ; and it was the 
greater value of it, produced by its scarcity in 1819, that made that pro- 
perty fall in price. 

I have taken these facts, sir, from the report of the then Secretary of the 
Treasury, Mr, Crawford, and they may be relied on. There can be no 
mistake in the deduction I make from them. 

It would seem, sir, as if all experience was lost on us. We again see the 
same extraordinary rise in the price of every thing which is an object of 
sale. Every one, as heretofore, is expatiating on the universal prosperity, 
and" there are no bounds to the imaginations in which men indulge in 
these matters. But, sir, our situation is just the same as it was in the other 
times I have been speaking of. 

In 1830, our circulation was ^/a-'/y-one millions of dollars. In Janu- 
ary 1835, or rather in June 1834, it was one hundred and three millions 
of dollars: In 1836 it cannot be less than one hundred and twenty mil- 
lions. An increase oi sixty millions of dollars \ns\\yeavs \ 1 give the 
facts from the official returns made by the Secretary of the Treasury. They 
come, sir, it is true, no lower down than 1835. But if we take the average 
increase for two or three years before that time, and reflect on the enor- 
mous rise of properly since (a sure indication of an unhealthy circulation), we 
must be satis-fied liiat there has been more than seventeen millions added to 
the circulation within the last sixteen months, and that one hundred and 
twenty millions is below rather than above the real estimate. 



27 

You see, sir, therefore, at a glance, the causes of the present state of things ; 
and who cannot also, sir, see at a glance how it is to end ? If the evil could, 
be checked now, and the reduction be slow and gradual, we might escape 
the consequences which time has inevitably in store for us under any other 
policy. But, sir, far from expecting this, I look to an increase of the dis- 
ease.- It appears to me inevitable. A universal madness has taken posses- 
sion of the public mind. Within the last four months I have heard of 
augmentations of banking capital, proposed or passed, to the amount of fift)r 
millions of dollars, and more I am told are projecting ; so that we may 
expect to see this system continuing until it breaks and falls from its own 
weight and magnitude. In the present state of things, the States are all 
interested lo increase the circulation of their own banks, and prevent that 
of their neighbors. Indeed, we already see symptoms of a war of legisla- 
tion (the result of jealousy), by which they are attempting to restrain the 
notes of banks in other States from passing within their limits. 

This deplorable state of things must yet get worse ; and well might the 
Senator from Missouri depict it in the colors he did a few days ago. He 
could not overcharge this picture — a picture, sir, rendered more painful 
to contemplate, by the recollection of our condition before the war was 
waged on the Bank of the United States. For sixteen years it regulated 
the currency of the country with a wisdom and success of which there is 
no parallel. We ihrew it away, and we see what we have got in its place. 
Sir, all the projects of regulating and checking the excess of bank emissions 
by law, refusing to receive at your Treasury their notes of a less sum thaa 
§20, will have no more effect than would have a bucket full of earth throwa 
into the Mississippi river to stop its current. And as to pushing gold and 
silver into circulation when you have five hundred and fifty banks interested 
in gathering it all up, and supplying its place with their notes, that is equal- 
ly impracticable ; a cheap and a dear currency never can exist together; 
the former always destroys the latter. Having no power by the Con- 
stitution to interfere directly with the State legislation in this matter, 
I see that the country is destined to go through the same scenes of agitation 
and suffering which it did previous to the operation of the late Bank 
of the United States. After the evils have come to a height when they can 
no longer be endured, we shall have another National Bank, a-nd not until 
then. But I submit if it would not have been as well to have prevented this 
state of things two years ago ? I inquire, v\hat good has been, or can be at- 
tained, by putting the People through this fearful trial ? Five or six years 
hence will be the time to get an answer to these questions. 

Sir, it affords me no consolation for all the calamities which I see approach- 
ing, that we are told the People of the United States have approved of all 
the acts of the President in relation to the Bank. If they had, I could not 
surrender my impressions ; but I have seen no evidence of the fact. It is 
inferred from his re-election, and from a majority of his friends being found 
in Congress. But, sir, I protest against any such a fallacy being received 
as proof of their approval. I believe, on the contrary, that the President 
was re-elected, and is now sustained, in spite of the removal of the depo- 
sites, not in consequence of that act. When I came here two years ago I con- 
versed in private with none of his friends who did not regret the step, 
though they were unwilling to abandon him for what they conceived to be 



^8 --a; 

an honest error. These friends still sustain him, because, with his defects 
and mistakes, they prefer him to those who might take his place. 

This, sir, is the true ground, not that taken in argument. By such 
reasoning as has been offered on tliis floor, every President who is re-elected 
has done no wrong, nor fallen into any error ; he is infallible. It is a pure 
sophism, sir, to assert that the re-election of any man argues an approval of 
each of his acts. It is only evidence that, taking them all, good and bad 
togeltier, the People accept him. 

Sir, I have much more to say, but the state of my health forbids me to 
go farther ; and I conclude by again returning my thanks to the Senate for 
tne attention with which they have honored me. 



4 



IK.c'p '10 



